Methods and apparel for attenuating electromagnetic fields emanating from a hunter

ABSTRACT

Attenuating, while hunting or observing wildlife, one&#39;s own emanated electromagnetic field by wearing apparel that includes an electromagnetically shielding fabric. The shielding fabric comprises a substantially continuous system of conductive fibers combined with non-conductive fabric. Or attenuating, while a hunter is hunting or an observer is observing wildlife, the electromagnetic field emanated by the hunter or observer, by (i) providing to the hunter or observer apparel that includes the electromagnetically shielding fabric, and (ii) instructing the hunter or observer to wear it while hunting or observing wildlife, respectively. The attenuation of the emanated electromagnetic field decreases the likelihood of detection by an animal. A wearable article of apparel comprises the electromagnetically shielding fabric, and can also comprise one or both of (i) a visual camouflage pattern on at least a portion of the its outer surface, or (ii) an odor absorber, suppressant, attenuator, or blocker.

BACKGROUND

The field of the present invention relates to hunting apparel. Inparticular, methods and apparel are disclosed for attenuatingelectromagnetic fields emanating from a hunter.

Successful hunting requires that the hunter approach a prey animalclosely enough to make a kill, by gunshot, bowshot, or other means.Hunting apparel typically includes adaptations for enabling the hunterto approach the prey animal without detection by the animal (or at leastmaking such detection less likely).

Alternatively, a hunter can remain stationary and wait for a prey animalto approach his/her position. A hunter typically employs a hunting blindfor concealment while awaiting the approach of the prey animal. Ahunting blind typically includes adaptations for enabling the hunter toremain undetected by the approaching prey animal (or at least makingsuch detection less likely).

The apparel or blinds used for hunting can also be used by those whowish to observe animals in the wild. Such observation can includephotographing, filming, recording, or merely viewing or listening to theanimal. By remaining undetected by an animal (or at least by making suchdetection less likely), one can observe the animal from a closer rangeand improve the quality of the observation. In the remainder of thepresent disclosure, most occurrences of the term “hunter” can beequivalently construed as “observer of wildlife” or just “observer,”unless the particular context makes it clear that that equivalence wouldnot apply.

Camouflage clothing, hoods or other headwear, glasses or other eyewear,or hunting blinds are conventionally used to conceal a hunter orwildlife observer. Such visual camouflage causes the hunter to blend inwith the surroundings, making him or her less visible to a prey animal.In addition to visual camouflage, hunting apparel or a hunting blind canalso include an odor absorber, suppressant, attenuator, or blocker.Examples of various hunting apparel and hunting blinds can be found inthe following references, each of which is incorporated by reference asif fully set forth herein:

-   -   Pat. Pub No. 2007/0226868 entitled “Low-cost disposable        odor-reducing hunting clothing” published Oct. 4, 2007 in the        name of Hunt;    -   U.S. Pat. No. 7,182,091 entitled “Hunting blind and method of        use thereof” issued Feb. 27, 2007 to Maddox;    -   Pat. Pub No. 2006/0147698 entitled “Garments preventing        transmission of human body odor” published Jul. 6, 2006 in the        names of Carroll et al; and    -   Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0209051 entitled “Camouflage U.S. Marine        Corps utility uniform: pattern, fabric, and design” published        Oct. 21, 2004 in the names of Santos et al;    -   Pat. Pub No. 2004/0107474 entitled “Odor absorbing article of        clothing” published Jun. 10, 2004 in the name of Sesselmann.    -   U.S. Pat. No 6,694,995 entitled “Rapidly-opening hunting blind”        issued Feb. 24, 2004 to Ransom;    -   U.S. Pat. No. 6,632,499 entitled “Hunter camouflage system”        issued Oct. 14, 2003 to Marks et al;    -   U.S. Pat. No. 6,539,966 entitled “Removable cover for a hunting        blind” issued Apr. 1, 2003 to Raines et al;    -   Pat. Pub No. 2002/0069449 entitled “Hood including        three-dimensional covering” published Jun. 13, 2002 in the names        of Blutstein et al;    -   U.S. Pat. No. 6,061,828 entitled “Camouflage items and        camouflage material thereon” issued May 16, 2000 to Josephs;    -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,767,933 entitled “Camouflage eyewear” issued        Jun. 16, 1998 to Hagan;    -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,838 entitled “Camouflage clothing” issued        Oct. 14, 1997 to Hollinger;    -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,521,655 entitled “Camouflage eyewear” issued May        28, 1996 to Rhoad;    -   Pat. No. Des. 350,399 entitled “Hunting blind” issued Sep. 6,        1994 to Bodrie;    -   Pat. No. Des. 337,366 entitled “Hunting blind” issued Jul. 13,        1993 to Baker; and    -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,203,033 entitled “Camouflaged garment” issued        Apr. 20, 1993 to Sheppard et al.

Both visual camouflage and odor reduction serve to reduce the ability ofthe prey animal to perceive the presence of the hunter or observer inthe animal's environment, by sight and scent, respectively.

It is known that the human body generates electromagnetic fields duringnormal body functions, and that those fields can increase in strengthwith increased activity, excitement, emotion, or attention. For example,brain activity, nerve activity, and muscle activity all result inelectric fields that emanate from the body. Detection andcharacterization of such fields is the basis for the conventionalclinical techniques of electrocardiography (i.e., ECG or EKG),electroencephalography (i.e., EEG), and electromyelography (i.e., EMG).For the purposes of the present disclosure or claims, “electromagnetic”is intended to denote those fields that have temporal variations wellbelow so-called optical frequencies (i.e., having frequency componentsno greater than about 1 gigahertz (GHz), typically no greater than about1 megahertz (MHz), and often no greater than about 1 kilohertz (kHz).

It is also known that at least some animals can detect or respond toelectromagnetic fields. For example, sharks detect electric fieldsemanating from prey by means of special sensing organs called theampullae of Lorenzini(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampullae_of_Lorenzini). A shark-repellingsystem is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,211,980 that generates anelectric field to drive away the sharks. Other animals are believed tonavigate their natural migratory routes using the earth's magnetic field(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/animals.html).

Fabrics exist that are adapted to attenuate or block electromagneticfields. They typically include electrically conductive fibers (metal,carbon nanotubes, or other conductive fibers) incorporated into thefabric along with more typical textile fibers. Garments constructed fromsuch fabrics are conventionally used to shield a human wearer fromsurrounding electromagnetic fields. Such shielding can be usefullyemployed into safety equipment or apparel, can be worn by or applied toa patient to provide various health or therapeutic benefits, or forother purposes. Examples of such fabrics and their uses can be found inthe following references, each of which is incorporated by reference asif fully set forth herein:

-   -   U.S. Pat. No. 7,354,877 entitled “Carbon nanotube fabrics”        issued Apr. 8, 2008 to Rosenberger et al;    -   U.S. Pat. No. 6,868,854 entitled “Method and article for        treatment of fibromyalgia” issued Mar. 22, 2005 to Kempe;    -   Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0053780 entitled “Method for fabricating        nanotube yarn” published Mar. 18, 2004 in the names of Jiang et        al;    -   U.S. Pat. No. 6,265,466 entitled “Electromagnetic shielding        composite comprising nanotubes” issued Jul. 24, 2001 to        Glatkowski et al;    -   U.S. Pat. No. 6,146,351 entitled “Method of reducing delayed        onset muscle soreness” issued Nov. 14, 2000 to Kempe;    -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,621,188 entitled “Air permeable electromagnetic        shielding medium” issued Apr. 15, 1997 to Lee et al;    -   U.S. Pat. No. 4,825,877 entitled “Method of pain reduction using        radiation-shielding textiles” issued May 2, 1989 to Kempe; and    -   U.S. Pat. No. 4,653,473 entitled “Method and article for pain        reduction using radiation-shielding textile” issued Mar. 31,        1987 to Kempe.

There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to attenuate orblock electromagnetic fields emanating from a human body, or that suchattenuation or blocking would be desirable.

SUMMARY

A method comprises attenuating, while hunting or observing wildlife,one's own emanated electromagnetic field by wearing at least one articleof apparel that includes an electromagnetically shielding fabric. Theshielding fabric comprises a substantially continuous system ofconductive fibers combined with a non-conductive fabric. The attenuationof one's own emanated electromagnetic field decreases the likelihood ofdetection by an animal.

Another method comprises attenuating, while a hunter is hunting or anobserver is observing wildlife, the electromagnetic field emanated bythe hunter or observer. The attenuation is accomplished by (i) providingto the hunter or observer at least one article of apparel that includesthe electromagnetically shielding fabric, and (ii) instructing thehunter or observer to wear, while hunting or observing wildlife,respectively, at least one said article of apparel. The attenuation ofthe electromagnetic field emanated by the hunter or observer decreasesthe likelihood of detection by an animal of the hunter or observer.

A wearable article of apparel comprises the electromagneticallyshielding fabric, and can also comprise one or both of (i) a visualcamouflage pattern on at least a portion of the its outer surface, or(ii) an odor absorber, suppressant, attenuator, or blocker.

Objects and advantages pertaining to hunting apparel incorporatingelectromagnetic shielding fabric may become apparent upon referring tothe exemplary embodiments illustrated in the drawings and disclosed inthe following written description or appended claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIGS. 1A and 1B are schematic top views illustrating the approach of ahunter toward a prey animal (or vice versa) with and without,respectively, electromagnetically shielding apparel or hunting blind.

FIG. 2 illustrates various exemplary articles of electromagneticallyshielding apparel.

FIGS. 3A and 3B illustrate exemplary articles of electromagneticallyshielding apparel that include exemplary visual camouflage patterns.

FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate exemplary electromagnetically shieldingfabrics.

FIGS. 5A-5C illustrate experimental arrangements described in theAppendix. FIG. 5D is a legend defining the symbols used in FIGS. 5A-5C.

FIGS. 6A-6E illustrate exemplary hunting blinds that includeelectromagnetically shielding material.

The embodiments shown in the Figures are exemplary, and should not beconstrued as limiting the scope of the present disclosure or appendedclaims.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS

A method comprises attenuating, while hunting, the electromagnetic fieldemanated by a hunter. The electromagnetic field is attenuated by atleast one article of apparel worn by the hunter while hunting. Thearticle comprises an electromagnetically shielding fabric, which fabriccomprises a substantially continuous system of conductive fiberscombined with a non-conductive fabric. Another method can includeproviding at least one such article of electromagnetically shieldingapparel to a hunter and instructing that hunter to wear the articlewhile hunting. That method can also include constructing at least onesaid article of apparel prior to providing it to the hunter. There is noteaching or suggestion in the prior art to attenuate or blockelectromagnetic fields emanating from a hunter while hunting (or from anobserver while observing wildlife), or that such attenuation or blockingwould be desirable. There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior artto incorporate electromagnetically shielding fabric into huntingapparel, or that the incorporation of such fabrics would be desirable.

By attenuating or blocking electromagnetic fields emanating from ahunter or observer, that hunter or observer can more closely approach ananimal without detection, or detection of that hunter or observer by theanimal can be made less likely. It is therefore desirable to providehunting apparel (including, e.g., clothing, eyewear, headwear) or ahunting blind that attenuates or blocks electromagnetic fields emanatingfrom the hunter or observer, thereby decreasing the likelihood ofdetection of the hunter or observer by an animal that is sensitive toelectromagnetic fields, and increasing the likelihood that the hunterwill be successful in taking the animal, or that the observer will besuccessful in making the desired observation of the animal.

The hunter wears the article of apparel while hunting. Theelectromagnetically shielding fabric blocks or attenuates anelectromagnetic field emanating from the hunter's body, therebydecreasing the likelihood that he or she will be detected by a preyanimal sensitive to such electromagnetic fields. An electromagneticfield 12 emanated by a hunter 10 and thus attenuated can be detected byan animal 14 at a maximum distance D1 (FIG. 1A) that is smaller than themaximum detection distance D2 at which an unattenuated field 12 (FIG.1B) can be detected by that same animal 14. The hunter 10 can thereforeapproach the animal 14 more closely without detection, facilitating thekill. In measurements of electromagnetic fields emanating from a humanbody, reductions of field strength ranging from about 38% to about 65%have been observed, as shown illustrated in the experimental resultsdisclosed in an Appendix attached to this specification. Any suitable,desirable, or practicable reduction of emanated electromagnetic fieldstrength shall fall within the scope of the present disclosure orappended claims.

The electromagnetically shielding fabric may block or attenuate electricfields, magnetic fields, or both, and any of those alternative shallfall within the scope of the present disclosure or appended claims. Itmay be preferable under particular circumstances to preferentially blockeither electric fields or magnetic fields, and such uses are encompassedby the present disclosure or appended claims.

As illustrated by the examples of FIG. 2, an article of hunting apparelincorporating electromagnetically shielding fabric can comprise anarticle of clothing (e.g., pants 18, shorts, shirt 16, undergarments,leggings, sleeves, gloves 20, mittens, jacket, coat, vest, overalls,waders, or snowsuit), footwear (e.g., shoes, boots 24, socks 22, or bootliners), headwear (e.g., hood 12, facemask 14, or hat), or eyewear(e.g., glasses or goggles 26).

In addition to providing electromagnetic shielding, the article ofapparel can also be adapted or arranged to decrease visual or olfactoryperception of the hunter by a prey animal. For example, articles ofapparel 30 can include a visual camouflage pattern on at least a portionof its outer surface (as in FIGS. 3A and 3B). Many examples of suchvisual camouflage are known, and some examples are disclosed in variousof the incorporated references. Any suitable visual camouflage pattern,including both two- and three-dimensional patterns, shall fall withinthe scope of the present disclosure or claims. In another example, thearticle of apparel can include an odor absorber, suppressant,attenuator, or blocker. Some examples of these are disclosed in variousof the incorporated references. Any suitable odor absorber, suppressant,attenuator, or blocker shall fall within the scope of the presentdisclosure or claims. By combining electromagnetic shielding with visualcamouflage or odor control, the overall likelihood that the hunter willbe detected by a prey animal can be decreased, and the probability of asuccessful kill can be increased.

Any suitable fabric can be employed that incorporates conductive fibersof any suitable type to form a substantially continuous electricalconduction network in the fabric. The conduction network 42 can bearranged irregularly (as in the example of FIG. 4A), in a grid-likepattern (as in the example of FIG. 4B), or in any other suitable,desirable, or practicable arrangement. The conductive fibers can beintermingled with non-conductive fibers 44 to form the shielding fabric40 (in a regular, interwoven arrangement or in an irregulararrangement). Examples of suitable fibers include typical textilefibers, e.g., wool, silk, or other natural polyamide fibers; cotton,rayon, or other cellulosic fibers; or nylon, polyester, Kevlar, or othersynthetic fibers. Alternatively, the conductive fibers 42 (regularly orirregularly arranged) can be applied to a surface of a non-conductingfabric 46 to form the shielding fabric 40. In that latter case, thenon-conducting fabric can comprise a woven, textile fabric, or cancomprise a substantially continuous sheet fabric such as a plastic sheetor polymer film. The conductive fibers can be combined with thenon-conducting fabric in any suitable, desirable, or practicable way,including those described above or others not explicitly disclosedherein, and all such combinations shall fall within the scope of thepresent disclosure or appended claims.

Any suitable conductive fibers can be employed that provide sufficientconductivity for providing electromagnetic shielding and that can formfibers suitable for incorporation into a fabric. In various examplesdisclosed in the incorporated references, the conductive fibers comprisestainless steel, copper, silver, conductive ceramic, conductive polymer,or conductive nanotubes. Any suitable composition of the electromagneticshielding fabric can be employed. One suitable example is Farabloc®fabric described in incorporated U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,653,473, 4,825,877,6,146,351, and 6,868,854. In various examples of such fabrics disclosedin the incorporated references, the fabric includes between about 2% andabout 35% by weight of the conductive fibers. Other exemplary fabricscan include greater than about 5%, greater than about 10%, greater thanabout 15%, greater than about 20%, greater than about 25%, or greaterthan about 30% by weight of the conductive fibers, while still otherexemplary fabrics can include less than about 30%, less than about 25%,less than about 20%, less than about 15%, less than about 10%, or lessthan about 5% by weight of the conductive fibers. Fabrics having greaterthan 35% by weight of conductive fibers can be employed if suitable,desirable, or practicable. Higher compositions of conductive fibertypically can provide greater electromagnetic shielding, but might alsocome at a higher cost or weight, or might yield a fabric with otherundesirable properties. Any suitably optimized composition can be usedin a given situation.

Case Study #1

The first subject is an experienced hunter of mule deer. The subject hasbeen hunting mule deer with bow and rifle for the last 28 years. Thesubject agreed to wear a garment incorporating electromagneticallyshielding fabric (Farabloc© fabric) during an archery mule deer hunt.

During said hunt the subject located two record book class mule deerbucks. One of these two specimens was described as a very large anddifficult trophy. The subject was able to stalk within 60 plus yards ofboth trophy deer, and then waited and watched for an opportunity toharvest one of the bucks with his bow. The subject was forced to wait inan area that offered very little concealment. Both deer looked in hisdirection several times over about a 30 minute period, during which thesubject was able to escape detection by either deer. After that waitingand watching period, he was able to shoot and harvest the larger of thetwo bucks with his bow. The subject expressed amazement that he was ableto stand so close to the two animals and remain undetected by them. Heindicated that previous experiences in similar hunting situations hadbeen much different, with the a mature mule deer buck typically able todetect his presence at similar distances. The only difference betweenthis hunt and previous hunts was the addition of the electromagneticallyshielding garment.

Case Study #2

Two subjects both wearing garments incorporating electromagneticallyshielding fabric (Farabloc© fabric) were stalking elk. Both subjects arevery experienced hunters with experience as professional guides. The twosubjects stalked into a small group of deer made up of two doe mule deerand two fawn mule deer. The mule deer, ranged from about 40 yards toabout 65 yards, saw the hunters but did not display the typical, flightybehavior of mule deer when threatened by a predator. They appearedunconcerned and moved off at a relaxed, leisurely pace. Both subjectshad previously experienced similar incidents with very differentresults. Typically, when mule deer see a stalking predator at a distancebetween about 40 yards and about 60 yards, they run quickly away. Bothsubjects had experienced such behavior on previous occasions when notwearing electromagnetically shielding garments. In the incidentdescribed above (with the electromagnetically shielding garments), thedeer were not alarmed even though both subjects had clearly been seen bythe deer.

Case Study #3

The subject, a bowhunter with over 40 years experienced hunting elk,wore prototype electromagnetically shielding clothing (incorporatingFarabloc© fabric). During a hunt a young bull elk came within about 10yards of his position. The elk walked past the subject without evenglancing in his direction and then lingered within 20 yards of thehunter for over 5 minutes, in spite of the fact that the hunter waspositioned in an open area. The subject stated that he has been thatclose to elk on many previous occasions (without electromagneticallyshielding garments), but has never had one be so oblivious to hispresence. He stated that in previous instances, even if elk did not fleeimmediately they would nearly always look in his direction, show signsof nervousness, and eventually flee.

In addition to the case studies, a more controlled, systematic test ofthe effect of electromagnetically shielding fabric on animals'perception of the electromagnetic field emanating from a human body isdisclosed in a manuscript reproduced in an Appendix attached to thisspecification.

A method comprises attenuating, while hunting, the electromagnetic fieldemanated by a hunter within a hunting blind. The hunting blind includesan electromagnetically shielding fabric of any suitable type describedherein. Another method can include providing an electromagneticallyshielding hunting blind to a hunter and instructing that hunter toremain within the hunting blind while hunting. That method can alsoinclude constructing the hunting blind prior to providing it to thehunter. There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to attenuateor block electromagnetic fields emanating from a hunter while hunting(or from an observer while observing wildlife), or that such attenuationor blocking would be desirable. There is no teaching or suggestion inthe prior art to incorporate electromagnetically shielding fabric into ahunting blind, or that the incorporation of such fabrics would bedesirable.

A several examples of a hunting blind 60 is shown in FIGS. 6A-6E.Hunting blind 60 includes electromagnetically shielding fabric 62arranged to attenuate the electromagnetic field emanating from a hunterwithin hunting blind 60. The attenuation of the hunter's electromagneticfield enables prey animals to approach the blind more closely beforeperceiving the hunter's presence within the blind.

Hunting blind 60 can be arranged in any suitable configuration whileremaining within the scope of the present disclosure or appended claims.Many examples of hunting blinds can be found in the prior art (some ofwhich are cited above), and any of them can incorporateelectromagnetically shielding fabric to attenuate the electromagneticfield emanating from a hunter within the hunting blind. Theelectromagnetically shielding fabric can be integrated into thestructure of the hunting blind, or can be provided as a add-on coveringor lining for an existing hunting blind. It may be desirable in manycircumstances to arrange the shielding fabric of the hunting blind tosubstantially completely enclose the hunter in all directions (exceptfor openings provided for viewing the prey and for shooting through),although such complete enclosure may not always be necessary. If thehunting blind is elevated and if such complete enclosure is desired, theshielding fabric can be incorporated into the bottom surface of theblind (below the hunter) as well as into the blind's other surfaces. Ifthe hunting blind rests on the ground, the shielding fabric can beincorporated into the bottom surface of the blind, the shielding fabriccan be omitted from the bottom surface, or the blind may not even have abottom surface; the ground can provide electromagnetic shielding in adownward direction if no shielding fabric is present below the hunter.Blinds that do not substantially enclose the hunter shall also fallwithin the scope of the present disclosure or appended claims. As withthe articles of hunting apparel disclosed above, a hunting blind thatincorporates electromagnetically shielding fabric can also include avisual camouflage pattern on at least a portion of its outer surface, orcan also include an odor absorber, suppressant, attenuator, or blocker.Any suitable fabric composition (e.g., Farabloc©) can be incorporatedinto a hunting blind.

It is intended that equivalents of the disclosed exemplary embodimentsand methods shall fall within the scope of the present disclosure orappended claims. It is intended that the disclosed exemplary embodimentsand methods, and equivalents thereof, may be modified while remainingwithin the scope of the present disclosure or appended claims.

For purposes of the present disclosure and appended claims, theconjunction “or” is to be construed inclusively (e.g., “a dog or a cat”would be interpreted as “a dog, or a cat, or both”; e.g., “a dog, a cat,or a mouse” would be interpreted as “a dog, or a cat, or a mouse, or anytwo, or all three”), unless: (i) it is explicitly stated otherwise,e.g., by use of “either . . . or”, “only one of . . . ”, or similarlanguage; or (ii) two or more of the listed alternatives are mutuallyexclusive within the particular context, in which case “or” wouldencompass only those combinations involving non-mutually-exclusivealternatives. For purposes of the present disclosure or appended claims,all instances of the words “comprising,” “including,” “having,” andvariants thereof shall be construed as open ended terminology, with thesame meaning as if the phrase “at least” were appended after eachinstance thereof.

APPENDIX

The following manuscript was prepared at the direction of the inventorsin the course of testing the electromagnetically shielding articles ofapparel disclosed herein, and has been included without further editingor alteration. Added Note: All blocking garments used in the disclosedexperiments were constructed using Farabloc© fabric as the EMF blockingmaterial.

Title: The use of EMF (electromagnetic field) blocking garments reducesthe ability of animals to detect a human subject.

Author: Ted W Netter; BS General Agriculture, Oregon State University,Post Graduate studies in Agriculture Education and Animal Science.

Abstract: Animals have an uncanny ability to detect the proximity ofhumans, this study explores the hypothesis that animals sense EMF(electromagnetic field) emissions produced by the human body. Thebehavior of three species of animals (Cattle, Horses, and Mule Deer) wasobserved while interacting with a human subject both with and withoutEMF (electromagnetic field) blocking garments. The results of this studyfind that the use of EMF blocking garments allow humans to approach 69to 75 percent closer to Mule Deer than without their use. The resultsalso show that the use of EMF blocking garments is more effective whenthe human subject remains motionless. Overall the study finds that usingEMF blocking garments makes a human significantly less-detectable byanimals.

Introduction: I was presented with the Hypothesis that animals(specifically wild game animals) have the ability to detect some kind ofelectromagnetic Field (EMF) or Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) energy,that is produced by the Human Body and that by blocking or attenuatingthis energy a person would be less detectable by wild animals. Havingbriefly studied the effects of High Power Transmission Lines on Animalsat Oregon State University I was intrigued by the Hypothesis andinitiated the following research. By breaking the hypothesis down to itsroot elements I found several questions I must answer. First what isEMF? Second how is EMF measured? Third can EMF be blocked? Fourth dohumans emit some kind of measurable EMF energy? Fifth do animals senseor react to any type of non directed EMF signal or energy.

EMF has a broad definition; to fully understand it one must includeelectromagnetic field, electromagnetic radiation, and electromagneticspectrum in the definition.

The electromagnetic field is a physical field produced by electricallycharged objects. It affects the behavior of charged objects in thevicinity of the field. The electromagnetic field extends indefinitelythroughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction. It isone of the four fundamental forces of nature (Wikipedia; NASA).

Electromagnetic radiation (sometimes abbreviated EMR) takes the form ofself-propagating waves in a vacuum or in mater. EM radiation has anelectric and magnetic field component which oscillates in phaseperpendicular to each other and to the direction of energy propagation.Electromagnetic radiation is classified into types according to thefrequency of the wave. EMR carries energy and momentum, which may beimparted when it interacts with matter (Wikipedia; NASA).

The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the range of all possibleelectromagnetic radiation frequencies. The electromagnetic spectrumextends from below the frequencies used for modern radio communication(at the long-wavelength end) through gamma radiation (at theshort-wavelength end), covering wavelengths from thousands of kilometersdown to a fraction the size of an atom (Wikipedia; NASA).

EMF is mainly characterized by its frequency and its strength. Thefrequency of EMF is measured in the unit hertz, which means “cycles persecond”. The strength of low frequency EMF (such as that produced byhumans) is measured in Milligauss or Microtesla (one Microtesla equalsten Milligauss) (how to measure EMF, Eriksen Andrew, MS).

The most recognized method for blocking EMF is the Faraday Cage. AFaraday cage is a metallic enclosure that prevents the entry or escapeof an electromagnetic field, Faraday cages can be built of solid metalshielding, metallic mesh, or other material that contain conductivefibers.

The human body produces conducts, and stores electricity, and thereforeEMF. The most common recognition of human produced electricity isthrough EKG, and EEG. The fact that humans conduct electricity is provenby simple devises such as an electric fence. A good example of humansstoring electricity is building up a “static electric” charge andsharing it with a friend. EKG (electrocardiogram) is a test thatmeasures the electrical activity of the heartbeat. With each beat, anelectrical impulse (or wave) travels through the heart (American heartassociation). EEG (electroencephalogram) is a test that measures andrecords the electrical activity of your brain (webMD).

I found two studies that show evidence of electromagnetic radiationaffecting animal behavior. W. Löscher and G. Käs (Authors) Conspicuousbehavioral abnormalities in a dairy cow herd near a TV and Radiotransmitting antenna. Prakt. Tierarzt 79: 5, 437-444 (1998) [PracticalVeterinary Surgeon 79: 5, 437-444 (1998)]. Löscher and Käs found that acow with abnormal behavior brought to a stable in a different arearesulted in normalization of the cow within five days. The symptomsreturned, however, when the cow was brought back to the stable in closeproximity to the antenna in question. In view of the previously knowneffects of electromagnetic fields it may be possible that the observedabnormalities are related to the electromagnetic field exposure.

The Department of Pharmacology, Silesian Academy of Medicine Katowice,Poland; Bioelectromagnetics 1993; 14(4): 287-97. Found that rats exposedto EMF (ELF) exhibited an increase or decrease in irritability dependingon field strength and duration. They concluded that irritability of ratsmay be used as a simple behavioral indicant of mammalian sensitivity tomagnetic fields.

This study specifically addresses the question: Do animals sense andreact to human produced EMF, and does blocking human produced EMF make aperson less detectable by animals?

Methods: My first area of study is how much EMF does a human produce,and can it be blocked? To explore this I set up the followingexperiment.

Experiment 1: Human EMF

Using a TriField Natural EM Meter, I located an area of low static EMFlevels (the static level stayed between 0.25 and 0.33 microteslas or 2.5to 3.3 milliguass). The experiment requires two people. First the EMmeter is set up on a non-conductive platform at chest height of theexperiment subject. Second the EM meter is calibrated to read a subjectpassing in front of it. Third an observation post is set up 15 feetbehind and 10 feet higher than the meter, the person observing andrecording the meter readings will use binoculars to insure accuratereadings and no interference with the meters readings. Fourth a subjectnot wearing EMF blocking material will pass by the meter at a distanceof no greater than 6 inches, but not touching the meter or the nonconductive platform at a slow walk this will be repeated 10 times at noless than a 30 second interval, the observer will record the highestreading on the meter for each pass. The subject will then put on EMFblocking garments and repeat the experiment (the EMF blocking garmentsinclude undergarment pants that cover the body from the ankles to thewaist, an undergarment shirt that covers from the neck to the wrists andover laps the pants, and a head net that goes under a hat and hangs downto overlap the shirt).

Experiment 2: Animal Behavior

In order to test animal's ability to sense and therefore react to humanproduced EMF, I set up the following experiments. Observe animalbehavior while interacting with a human subject both with and withoutthe use of EMF blocking material. For this experiment I chose thefollowing animals, Cattle, Horses, and wild Mule Deer. These animalswere chosen for, availability to the researcher, past history observingtheir behavior and availability of research on their behavior. In orderto keep this study simple and repeatable I limited human interactionwith the animals to one human subject at a time. All measurements aredone in either Feet or Yards and are completed by physical measurement,and or use of a laser range finder, distance estimates are used whenmeasurement during the experiment would affect results. Numbers ofanimals observed are exact where possible and estimated when an exactcount is impossible. Efforts are made to mask means of detection by theanimals other than EMF energy, specifically Camouflage clothing is usedalong with natural cover to disguise the human subject, no scentsuppression is used other than that available in the naturalenvironment, experiments are designed to use wind direction to help maskthe subjects scent, experiments are designed to minimizes animals priorknowledge of the location of the subject, movement and noise during theexperiment are limited to sounds and motion required to complete theexperiment, all data from the experiments will be cataloged mentally bythe subject and recorded at the end of the experiment session, orcataloged and recorded physically by a third party using long rangeobservation. Experiments A-Ff will be the control experiments and willbe conducted without EMF blocking material.

The experiments conducted with the EMF blocking material are labeledA2-Ff2. The EMF blocking material includes undergarment pants that coverthe body from the ankles to the waist, an undergarment shirt that coversfrom the neck to the wrists and over laps the pants, and a head net thatgoes under a hat and hangs down to overlap the shirt. This will be wornalong with the same outer garments used in the control experiments.

Experiment A: Cattle

Cattle are observed while moving through a fixed choke point from restto feed and water without pressure. This experiment must use anestablished travel route that the cattle have had exposure to for atleast 5 consecutive days. The choke point should be between 12 and 16feet wide (for my experiment I used a 14 foot gateway). The humansubject is positioned on the side of the opening at which the cattle areat rest 12 feet from the opening on a parallel line to the openingseated on the ground and using natural cover (leaning back against thefence) See FIG. 5A and the legend in FIG. 5D. The Human subject willtake up their observation point no later than one half hour beforecattle are normally given access to their feed source, and only if nocattle are present at the choke point, or are near or observing thechoke point. The human subject will observe the cattle and mentallycatalog data from their observation point minimizing movement, noise,eye contact or any other interaction with the cattle Observation of thecattle behavior will continue for one half hour after the first Bovineapproaches the choke point opening.

Experiment B: Cattle

The reaction of cattle is observed while a human subject moves directlyat them in an open field starting from a distance of no less than 150yards the human subject will move slowly towards the cattle stopping andtaking a yardage reading with a range finder when directly observed bycattle or cattle start to move away from the human subject. The humansubject will try to approach as close as possible to the cattle withoutthem running off from the subject.

Experiment C: Horse

Horses are observed while moving from rest to feed without pressurethrough an alleyway (see FIG. 5B and the legend in FIG. 5D) The humansubject is positioned on the side of and halfway down a 14 ft wide 200ft long alleyway that connects a horse paddock to a pasture. Thesehorses go down this particular alleyway twice a day on their way out tothe pasture there is no pressure from a herdsman, on the way in from thepasture herding pressure is used. For this experiment the horses wereobserved while going out to pasture without herding pressure. The humansubject will take up the observation post 10 min before the horses areto be turned out and will be standing up against a fence for safetyreasons (preliminary studies show that the horses were often running 3wide by the time they reached the observation point). The human subjectwill observe the horses and mentally catalog data from their observationpoint minimizing movement, noise, eye contact or any other interactionwith the horses. Observation will continue until the horses move to apoint 50 feet beyond the observation point.

Experiment D: Horse

The reaction of horses is observed while a human subject moves directlyat them in an open field starting from a distance of no less than 150yards the human subject will move slowly towards the horses stopping andtaking a yardage reading with a range finder when directly observed bythe horse or the horses start to move away from the human subject. Thehuman subject will try to approach as close as possible to the horseswithout them running off from the subject.

Experiment E: Wild Mule Deer

Mule Deer are observed while moving from their bed grounds (a state ofrest) to feed and water. This experiment uses a known travel route ofdeer between a ridge where they rest, a pond where they water and afield they have been actively grazing (see FIG. 5C and the legend inFIG. 5D). Preliminary studies show that small groups of deer (2-5 at atime) have been using this travel every afternoon for at least 3 daysbefore the study. The human subject will position themselves 12 to 20feet off to the side of the established deer trail, at a location thatgives the subject a good view of the deer trail for at least 50 yards inthe direction the deer will be coming from. The subject will use thebest natural cover available and be in the seated position (to minimizemovement do to fatigue). The human subject will mentally catalogue datawhile deer are present and record data and make measurements with therange finder only when deer are not present.

Experiment F: Wild Mule Deer

The reactions of Mule Deer are observed while a human subject movesdirectly at them in an open field. Starting from a distance of no lessthan 150 yards the human subject will move slowly towards the deerstopping and taking a yardage reading with a range finder when directlyobserved by the deer or the deer start to move away from the humansubject. The human subject will try to approach as close as possible tothe deer without them running off from the subject.

Experiment Ff: Mule Deer

The reactions of Mule Deer are observed while being stalked by a humansubject. The subject will only move or take readings when the deer havetheir heads down and are feeding, not observing the human subject. Thehuman subject will try to approach as close to the deer as possible upuntil they leave the field.

Results:

Experiment 1: How much EMF does a human produce, and can it be blocked?

All readings are expressed in microteslas, to convert readings tomilligauss multiply the reading by ten.

Column A represents the use of EMF blocking material (W=readings takenwith EMF blocking material, WO=readings taken without EMF blockingmaterial).

Columns B-K represents individual test results (these have no directcorrelation to each other they are simply raw readings).

The Column labeled AVG is the average reading for the test session.

A B C D E F G H I J K AVG WO 4.2 3.7 4.8 4.8 4.3 3.9 4 4.5 4.2 4 4.24 W1.9 2.2 2 2 2.3 1.7 1.7 2.1 2 1.9 1.98

Results of note: The data table in experiment 1 shows that the use ofEMF blocking material reduces the EM field strength of the human body by53 percent on average. Further analysis of the data shows a potentialminimum of 38 percent and a maximum of 65 percent. Overall results thehuman body does produce measurable amounts of EMF, and human producedEMF can be blocked using the proper material.

Experiment A: Cattle are observed by a human subject (without EMFblocking material) moving through a fixed choke point from rest to feedand water.

52 head of weaned calves used in this experiment

Column A represents the experiment session.

Column B represents the number of cattle.

Column C represents the distance at which the cattle first observe andreact to human subject (ND=no detection).

Column D represents the reaction of the cattle to the human subject(S=stop and stare, MA=move around, NR=no reaction, R=retreat,A=approach). Reactions are listed in order of how they happened.

Column E represents the distance from human subject when the cattlestart to move to the choke point.

Column F represents how the cattle move through the choke point (W=walk,F=fast walk, R=run).

A B C D E F 1 7 30 yds S, MA, A 20 yds F, R 1 4 37 yds S, A, MA 29 yds R1 11 32 yds S, R, A, MA 21 yds R 2 15 35 yds S, R, MA, A 15 yds F, R 2 629 yds S, A, MA 18 yd  F 2 23 40 yds S, A, S, MA 22 yds R 3 10 25 yds S,R, MA, A 11 yds F, R 3 13 30 yds S, A, S 20 yds F 3 8 27 yds S, MA, A 15yds R 3 2 20 yds S, A 12 yds R AVG 9.9 30.5 yds   NA 18.3 yds   NA

Results of note: All groups of calves, if not every single calf in eachsession detected and had some reaction to the test subject. Groups ofcalves spent between 30 seconds and 3 minutes observing and reacting tothe subject. Not all of the cattle observed in this experiment passedthrough the choke point within the 30 minute sessions.

Experiment A2: Cattle are observed by a human subject (using EMFblocking material) moving through a fixed choke point from rest to feedand water.

52 head of weaned calves used in this experiment

Column A represents the experiment session.

Column B represents the number of cattle.

Column C represents the distance at which the cattle first observe andreact to human subject (ND=no detection).

Column D represents the reaction of the cattle to the human subject(S=stop and stare, MA=move around, NR=no reaction, R=retreat,A=approach). Reactions are listed in order of how they happened.

Column E represents the distance from human subject when the cattlestart to move to the choke point.

Column F represents how the cattle move through the choke point (W=walk,F=fast walk, R=run).

A B C D E F 1 14 10 yds S, A 7 yds W, F 1 8 ND NR NA W 1 22  7 yds S, NR7 yds W 1 8 12 yds S, A, A, A 5 yds W, F 2 12 ND NR NA F 2 16 12 yds S,A 9 yds W 2 6 10 yds S, NR 10 yds  W 2 10  7 yds NR 7 yds W 2 8 ND NR NAF, R 3 7 10 yds S, NR 10 yds  W 3 16  7 yds NR 7 yds W 3 4 ND NR NA F 325 12 yds NR 12 yds  W AVG 12 9.67 yds   NA 8.22 yds   NA

Results of note: Not all groups of calves or individual calves in thegroups detected or had a reaction to the test subject. 36 percent of thegroups of calves in this experiment did not detect the test subject. 64percent of the groups of cattle had no reaction to the subject. 27percent of the groups of calves that detected the subject had noreaction other than looking at the subject. Calves that detected thesubject spent no more than 45 seconds reacting to the subject.

Experiment A-A2 comparative results: On average the calves in A2 came 68percent closer to the subject before they detected the subject than thecalves in A. On average the calves in A2 passed through the choke point55 percent closer to the subject than the calves in A.

Experiment B: The reaction of cattle is observed while a human subjectmoves directly at them in an open field (without EMF blocking material).

Column A represents the experiment session.

Column B is the starting distance from the animals.

Column C is the distance at which the animals first detect the humansubject.

Column D is the distance at which the animals first react to the humansubject.

Column E is the distance at which the animals actively react to thehuman subject.

Column F is the closest distance between the human subject and theanimals.

The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment.

A B C D E F 1 225 yds 200 yds 125 yds 3 yds 3 yds 2 180 yds 160 yds 130yds 3 yds 3 yds 3 200 yds 165 yds 110 yds 3 yds 3 yds AVG 201.67 yds  175 yds 121.67 yds   3 yds 3 yds

Results of note: The cattle in this experiment did not run away from thetest subject, but they would move away and around the subject if thesubject got within 9-10 feet of them. Once the subject entered the groupof cattle most cattle that were farther than 15 yards from the subjectwent on feeding and did not react to the subject.

Experiment B2: The reaction of cattle is observed while a human subjectmoves directly at them in an open field (using EMF blocking material).

Column A represents the experiment session.

Column B is the starting distance from the animals.

Column C is the distance at which the animals first detect the humansubject.

Column D is the distance at which the animals first react to the humansubject.

Column E is the distance at which the animals actively react to thehuman subject.

Column F is the closest distance between the human subject and theanimals.

The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment.

A B C D E F 1   185 yds   150 yds 100 yds 40 yds 20 yds 2   215 yds  170 yds 105 yds 55 yds 22 yds 3   175 yds   140 yds  90 yds 30 yds 15yds AVG 191.67 yds 153.33 yds 98.33 yds   41.67 yds   19 yds

Results of note: Cattle actively avoided the test subject when thesubject approached within 42 yards on average. All cattle in groupreacted to the test subject when subject entered the group of cattle.

Experiment B-B2 comparative results: Even though the subject in B2 wasable to approach closer to the cattle without being detected, thesubject got closer to the cattle without them actively reacting inexperiment B.

Experiment C: Horses are observed while moving from rest to feed withoutpressure through an alleyway (without EMF blocking material). 14 horseswere observed in this experiment

Session one: Horses enter the alleyway as a group jogging; the leadhorse starts to slow down 30 yards from the subject. All horses slow toa stop and look at the subject at 20 yards, several horses walk towardthe subject, all horses follow and stop at 10 yards. Three horses moveto the far side of the alleyway, passing by the subject and continuingdown the alleyway, once the three horses start running the rest of thehorses move past the subject and down the alleyway.

Session two: The horses enter the alleyway running three horses wide, at35 yards the lead horse moves to the far side of the alley, the rest ofthe horses slow and move behind the lead horse. All of the horses run bythe subject on the far side of the alleyway.

Session three: The horses enter the alleyway in a group, at a jog. Allof the horses stay in a group until they are 10 feet from the subject.Four of the horses slow and stop by the subject; most of the horses goby the subject at a jog, several horses stop after passing the subject,one of these horses' snorts and runs off, the rest of the horses followrunning off.

Results of note: All horses in all three sessions both detected andreacted to the test subject. During session three the four horses thatapproach the subject react to the subject for approximately 30 secondsbefore passing the subject.

Experiment C2: Horses are observed while moving from rest to feedwithout pressure through an alleyway (using EMF blocking material). 14horses were observed in this experiment

Session one: The horses enter the alleyway, running in a long group. Thehorses keep running the length of the alleyway passing 5 feet from thesubject.

Session two: The horses enter the alleyway in two groups jogging. Thehorses move the length of the alleyway at a jog, passing the subject at5-6 feet.

Session three: The horses enter the alleyway running in a tight groupfour horses wide. The horses run the length of the alley way, one horseruns within 3 feet of the subject.

Results of note: None of the horses in these sessions showed anydetection of or reaction to the subject. None of these sessions lastedlonger than 25 seconds. In session three the subject almost got run intoby a paint horse.

Experiment D: The reaction of horses is observed while a human subjectmoves directly at them in an open field (without EMF blocking material).

Column A represents the experiment session.

Column B is the starting distance from the animals.

Column C is the distance at which the animals first detect the humansubject.

Column D is the distance at which the animals first react to the humansubject.

Column E is the distance at which the animals actively react to thehuman subject.

Column F is the closest distance between the human subject and theanimals.

The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment.

A B C D E F 1 165 yds 140 yds 120 yds 90 yds 15 yds 2 180 yds 165 yds135 yds 95 yds 15 yds 3 155 yds 135 yds 115 yds 80 yds 10 yds AVG 166.67yds   146.67 yds   123.33 yds   88.33 yds   13.33 yds  

Results of note: The standard reaction of the horses was to group upwhen approached by the subject. The horses did not continually keeptrack of the subjects' progress towards them. Horses appeared calm assubject approached close to the group.

Experiment D2: The reaction of horses is observed while a human subjectmoves directly at them in an open field (using EMF blocking material).

Column A represents the experiment session.

Column B is the starting distance from the animals.

Column C is the distance at which the animals first detect the humansubject.

Column D is the distance at which the animals first react to the humansubject.

Column E is the distance at which the animals actively react to thehuman subject.

Column F is the closest distance between the human subject and theanimals.

The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment.

A B C D E F 1 170 yds 130 yds 125 yds 80 yds 20 yds 2 185 yds 125 yds115 yds 75 yds 17 yds 3 150 yds 110 yds 100 yds 75 yds 11 yds AVG 168.33yds   121.67 yds   113.33 yds   76.67 yds   16 yds

Results of note: Most of the horses continually kept track of thesubjects' progress towards them. The standard reaction of the horses wasto group up when approached by the subject, however in session one, twohorses moved between the group and the subject. Horses seemed alarmedwhen subject approached close to the group of horses.

Experiment D-D2 comparative results: The largest change in resultsbetween D, and D2 is not represented in the data, but by the horses'attitude, without EMF blocking material they are calm, with the use ofit they appeared alarmed by the subjects' presence.

Experiment E: Mule Deer are observed while moving from their bed grounds(a state of rest) to feed and water (without EMF blocking material).

Column A represents experiment session.

Column B represents the number of deer observed.

Column C represents the distance at which the deer are first observed.

Column D represents the distance at which the deer first detect thesubject (ND=deer never detect subject).

Column E represents the reaction of the deer when they detect thesubject (S=stop and stare, A=approach, R=retreat, MA=move around or awayfrom, AL=makes alarm sound or movement, L=look at, NR=no reaction).

Column F represents the speed at which the deer travel after detectingthe subject, or the speed at which they pass by the subject (W=walk,F=fast walk, R=run).

Column G represents the closest the deer get to the subject.

A B C D E F G 1 3 85 yds 52 yds S, MA F 52 yds 1 1 100 yds  85 yds MA F80 yds 1 4 85 yds 65 yds S, AL, MA R 50 yds 1 22 deer observed in fieldat the close of session 2 3 70 yds 60 yds S, MA F 45 yds 2 5 68 yds 55yds S, A, S, AL F, R 30 yds 2 2 100 yds  70 yds S, MA, AL F, R 52 yds 24 75 yds 50 yds S, AL, MA R 50 yds 2 17 deer observed in field at theclose of session 3 1 50 yds 50 yds S, A, AL, MA R 40 yds 3 6 65 yds 47yds S, MA, A, AL R 35 yds 3 25 deer observed in field at the close ofsession AVG 3.22 77.56 yds   59.33 yds   NA NA 48.22 yds  

Results of note: All groups of deer if not all deer individuallydetected and reacted to the test subject. In 67 percent of the groups ofdeer, one or more of the deer made an alarm sound or movement upondetecting the subject, 67 percent of the groups also reacted by runningfrom or past the subject. 89 percent of the deer got closer to thesubject after the subject spotted the deer. 78 percent of the deer gotcloser to the subject after they detected the subject.

Experiment E2: Mule Deer are observed while moving from their bedgrounds (a state of rest) to feed and water (Using EMF blockingmaterial).

Column A represents experiment session.

Column B represents the number of deer observed.

Column C represents the distance at which the deer are first observed.

Column D represents the distance at which the deer first detect thesubject (ND=deer never detect subject).

Column E represents the reaction of the deer when they detect thesubject (S=stop and stare, A=approach, R=retreat, MA=move around or awayfrom, AL=makes alarm sound or movement, L=look at, NR=no reaction).

Column F represents the speed at which the deer travel after detectingthe subject, or the speed at which they pass by the subject (W=walk,F=fast walk, R=run).

A B C D E F G 1 4 72 yds  6 yds L, NR W  6 yds 1 1 100 yds  ND NR W 30yds 1 3 82 yds 10 yds L, S, NR W 10 yds 1 6 60 yds ND NR FW 10 yds 1 27deer observed in field at the close of session 2 2 90 yds ND NR W 15 yds2 4 65 yds  9 yds L, NR W  9 yds 2 5 75 yds 15 yds L, A, S, MA W 10 yds2 3 85 yds ND NR W 25 yds 2 1 35 yds ND NR W 15 yds 2 31 deer observedin field at the close of session 3 1 40 yds 12 yds L W 12 yds 3 7 90 ydsND NR W 20 yds 3 3 70 yds 13 yds L W 13 yds 3 3 50 yds 15 yds L, A, L, W10 yds 3 24 deer observed in field at the close of session AVG 3.3170.31 yds   11.43 yds   NA NA 14.23 yds  

Results of note: 46 percent of the groups of deer did not detect thetest subject. Only one of the seven groups (14%) of deer that detectedthe subject moved around or away from the subject. None of the deer thatdetected the subject moved faster than a walk after detecting thesubject. None of the deer made an alarm sound or movement afterdetecting the subject. 100 percent of the deer got closer to the subjectafter the subject spotted them. 29 percent of the deer that detected thesubject got closer to the subject after they detected the subject.

Experiment E-E2 comparative results: On average the deer that detectedthe subject in E2 got 81 percent (47.9 yards) closer to the subjectbefore detection than the deer that detected the subject in E. Onaverage the closest distance to the deer in E2 was 14.23 yards, that's33.99 yards closer than in E. 100 percent of the deer in experiment Eavoided the subject by moving away from or around the subject all ofthose deer did so at a fast walk or run, only 8 percent of the deer inexperiment E2 moved away from or around the subject, and those deer didso at a walk.

Experiment F: The reactions of Mule Deer are observed while a humansubject moves directly at them in an open field (without EMF blockingmaterial).

Column A represents the experiment session.

Column B is the number of deer in the group being stalked

Column C is the starting distance from the deer.

Column D is the distance at which the deer first detect the humansubject.

Column E is the distance at which the deer first react to the humansubject.

Column F is the distance at which the deer actively move away from thehuman subject.

Column G is the closest distance between the human subject and the deer.

The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment.

A B C D E F G 1 7 212 yds 212 yds 200 yds 180 yds   180 yds 2 9 185 yds171 yds 165 yds 160 yds   160 yds 3 5 163 yds 163 yds 163 yds 200 yds  163 yds AVG 7 186.67 yds   182 yds 176 yds 180 yds 167.67 yds

Results of note: In session three the deer observed the human subjectentering the field, and immediately started feeding and moving away fromthe subject, when the subject moved toward the deer, the deer ran out ofthe field after the subject had moved around 30 yards towards them. Inall three sessions the deer detected the subject within the first 14yards of the subject moving toward the deer. Once the subject wasdetected by the deer at least one deer always kept track of the subject,even after running away.

Experiment F2: The reactions of Mule Deer are observed while a humansubject moves directly at them in an open field (using EMF blockingmaterial).

Column A represents the experiment session.

Column B is the number of deer in the group being stalked

Column C is the starting distance from the deer.

Column D is the distance at which the deer first detect the humansubject.

Column E is the distance at which the deer first react to the humansubject.

Column F is the distance at which the deer actively move away from thehuman subject.

Column G is the closest distance between the human subject and the deer.

The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment.

A B C D E F G 1 5 185 yds 160 yds 125 yds 71 yds 60 yds 2 8 230 yds 190yds 130 yds 75 yds 50 yds 3 8 160 yds 160 yds 105 yds 70 yds 47 yds AVG7 191.67 yds   170 yds 120 yds 72 yds 52.33 yds  

Results of note: In two of the three sessions the subject progressed 25yards or further toward the deer without being detected upon enteringthe field. In all three sessions the deer did not continuously keeptrack of the subject after they first detected the subject. Individualdeer in all three sessions allowed the subject to get closer to themafter they had already actively moved away from the subject.

Experiment F-F2 comparative results: The subject progressed over 115yards closer to the deer on average in experiment D2 as compared to D.The subject progressed 56 yards closer to the deer on average before thedeer reacted to the subject in D2 as compared to D.

Experiment Ff: The reactions of Mule Deer are observed while beingstalked by a human subject. The subject will only move or take readingswhen the deer have their heads down and are feeding, not observing thehuman subject (without EMF blocking material).

Column A represents the experiment session.

Column B is the number of deer in the group being stalked

Column C is the starting distance from the deer.

Column D is the distance at which the deer first detect the humansubject.

Column E is the distance at which the deer first react to the humansubject.

Column F is the distance at which the deer actively move away from thehuman subject.

Column G is the closest distance between the human subject and the deer.

The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment.

A B C D E F G 1 10 200 yds 155 yds 125 yds 120 yds 120 yds 2 6 170 yds160 yds 155 yds 133 yds 133 yds 3 7 240 yds 185 yds 150 yds 145 yds 120yds AVG 7.67 203.33 yds   166.67 yds   143.33 yds   132.67 yds   124.33yds  

Results of note: In all three sessions the subject progressed 10 yardsor farther into the field before being detected. In two of the threesessions the subject got no closer to the deer after they had started toactively move away from the subject. In all three sessions the subjectprogressed 33 yards or farther toward the deer before they started toactively move away.

Experiment Ff2: The reactions of Mule Deer are observed while beingstalked by a human subject. The subject will only move or take readingswhen the deer have their heads down and are feeding, not observing thehuman subject (using EMF blocking material).

Column A represents the experiment session.

Column B is the number of deer in the group being stalked

Column C is the starting distance from the deer.

Column D is the distance at which the deer first detect the humansubject.

Column E is the distance at which the deer first react to the humansubject.

Column F is the distance at which the deer actively move away from thehuman subject.

Column G is the closest distance between the human subject and the deer.

The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment.

A B C D E F G 1 9   220 yds 105 yds 85 yds 55 yds   40 yds 2 11   160yds  20 yds 20 yds 35 yds   20 yds 3 5   180 yds 140 yds 90 yds 60 yds  35 yds AVG 8.33 186.67 yds 88.33 yds   65 yds 50 yds 31.67 yds

Results of note: In session two the subject progressed to within 50yards of the deer when they start to feed toward the subject, severalhorses in the field approach the subject to within 30 yards and snort atsubject; the deer continue to feed toward the subject even though thewind direction has changed and is blowing from the subject directly atthe deer, the deer continue to feed directly at the subject and two deerclose to 20 yards, the horses then stamp and blow and the deer look atthe subject and start to feed away, the deer finally actively react tothe subject at 35 yards. In two of the three sessions the subjectprogresses more than 100 yards toward the deer before being detected. Inall three sessions subject approaches deer to within 40 yards.

Experiment Ff-Ff2 comparative results: The subject progressed over 92yards closer to the deer on average in experiment Ff2 as compared to Ff.The subject progressed over 78 yards closer to the deer on averagebefore the deer reacted to the subject in Ff2 as compared to Ff.

Discussion: Taking into consideration the results from all of theexperiments I reach the following conclusions; humans do produce andemit some level of EMF, that EMF can be reduced by the use of EMFblocking garments. Animals do sense or detect EMF produced by humans,and blocking or reducing EMF emissions makes humans less-detectable byanimals. There are several specific examples in the previous experimentsthat EMF blocking has a profound effect on the ability of deer to detectand recognize humans. First in experiment E2 fifteen mule deer looked atthe subject in the experiment, yet still approached the subject towithin 10 yards or less (3 deer to 6 yards) and had no reaction to thesubject, they did not act alarmed, or run away, they simply walked off.Compare that to experiment E, and the closest a deer got to the subjectwas 30 yards and that deer both acted alarmed and ran off. In experimentFf2 deer feed and walked toward the subject in an open field, lookeddirectly at the subject, watched horses react to the subjects' presence,yet still continued to feed and walk toward the subject eventuallycoming within 20 yards of the subject. These past two examples havesomething in common, the subject was not moving, and looking at the dataEMF blocking has the most effect on animals when the human subject isnot moving. Another area of this study also needs to be discussed, thecattle and horses used in this experiment are “tame” farm animals, theyare accustom to people being around them, and during the course of thisexperiment the subject became very familiar with the animals. During thecontrol portion of the experiment the horses and cattle acted similartoward the subject as they do to their owners and care takers, howeverwhen the subject was wearing the EMF blocking garments, the cattle andespecially the horses, acted as if they did not recognize the subject asa human when the subject was walking toward or through them. When thesubject was not moving however the cattle and horses rarely detected thepresence of the subject. In closing the data generated by this studyleads me to believe that EMF blocking makes humans significantlyless-detectable by animals.

Sources:

W. Löscher and G. Käs (Authors) Conspicuous behavioral abnormalities ina dairy cow herd near a TV and Radio transmitting antenna. Prakt.Tierarzt 79: 5, 437-444 (1998) [Practical Veterinary Surgeon 79: 5,437-444 (1998)] Schlütersche GmbH & Co. KG, Verlag und Druckerei[Schlütersche GmbH & Co. KG, Publisher and Printer] ISSN 0032-681 X

Trzeciak HI, Grzesikj, Bortel M, Kuska R, Duda D, Michnik J, Malecki A;Behavioral effects of long-term exposure to magnetic fields in rats.Bioelectromagnetics. 1993;14(4):287-97

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_fieldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiationhttp://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/emspectrum.htmlhttp://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Imagnet.htmlhttp://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3005172http://www.webmd.com/epilepsy/electroencephalogram-eeg-21508http://www.eiwellspring.org/HowToMeasureEMF.htm http://www.farabloc.com

1. A method comprising attenuating, while hunting for or observingnon-human wildlife, one's own emanated electromagnetic field by wearingat least one article of apparel that includes an electromagneticallyshielding fabric, which shielding fabric comprises a substantiallycontinuous system of conductive fibers combined with a non-conductivefabric and attenuates the emanated electromagnetic field at frequenciesless than about 1 gigahertz, wherein said attenuating of one's ownemanated electromagnetic field at frequencies less than about 1gigahertz decreases the likelihood of detection by a non-human animal.2. The method of claim 1 wherein the conductive fibers are intermingledwith non-conductive fibers that form the non-conducting fabric.
 3. Themethod of claim 1 wherein the conductive fibers are applied to a surfaceof the non-conducting fabric.
 4. The method of claim 1 wherein at leastone said article of apparel comprises an article of clothing, footwear,headwear, or eyewear.
 5. The method of claim 1 wherein at least one saidarticle of apparel includes a visual camouflage pattern on at least aportion of its outer surface.
 6. The method of claim 1 wherein at leastone said article of apparel includes an odor absorber, suppressant,attenuator, or blocker.
 7. The method of claim 1 wherein the shieldingfabric includes between about 2% and about 35% by weight of theconductive fibers.
 8. The method of claim 1 wherein the conductivefibers comprises stainless steel fibers.
 9. The method of claim 1wherein the conductive fibers comprise copper, silver, conductiveceramic, conductive polymer, or conductive nanotubes.
 10. A methodcomprising attenuating, while a user is hunting for or observingnon-human wildlife, the user's emanated electromagnetic field by:providing to the user at least one article of apparel that includes anelectromagnetically shielding fabric, which shielding fabric comprises asubstantially continuous system of conductive fibers combined with anon-conductive fabric and attenuates the emanated electromagnetic fieldat frequencies less than about 1 gigahertz; and instructing the user towear, while hunting for or observing the non-human wildlife, at leastone said article of apparel, wherein said attenuating of the user'semanated electromagnetic field at frequencies less than about 1gigahertz decreases the likelihood of detection of the user by anon-human animal.
 11. The method of claim 10 wherein the conductivefibers are intermingled with non-conductive fibers that form thenon-conducting fabric.
 12. The method of claim 10 wherein the conductivefibers are applied to a surface of the non-conducting fabric.
 13. Themethod of claim 10 wherein at least one said article of apparelcomprises an article of clothing, footwear, headwear, or eyewear. 14.The method of claim 10 further comprising constructing at least one saidarticle of apparel prior to providing it to the user.
 15. The method ofclaim 10 wherein at least one said article of apparel includes a visualcamouflage pattern on at least a portion of its outer surface.
 16. Themethod of claim 10 wherein at least one said article of apparel includesan odor absorber, suppressant, attenuator, or blocker.
 17. The method ofclaim 10 wherein the shielding fabric includes between about 2% andabout 35% by weight of the conductive fibers.
 18. The method of claim 10wherein the conductive fibers comprises stainless steel fibers.
 19. Themethod of claim 10 wherein the conductive fibers comprise copper,silver, conductive ceramic, conductive polymer, or conductive nanotubes.20. The method of claim 1 wherein said attenuating of one's own emanatedelectromagnetic field at frequencies less than about 1 megahertzdecreases the likelihood of detection by the non-human animal.
 21. Themethod of claim 1 wherein said attenuating of one's own emanatedelectromagnetic field at frequencies less than about 1 kilohertzdecreases the likelihood of detection by the non-human animal.
 22. Themethod of claim 10 wherein said attenuating of the user's emanatedelectromagnetic field at frequencies less than about 1 megahertzdecreases the likelihood of detection of the user by the non-humananimal.
 23. The method of claim 10 wherein said attenuating of theuser's emanated electromagnetic field at frequencies less than about 1kilohertz decreases the likelihood of detection of the user by thenon-human animal.